Investigating the Events of September 11, 2001 Using the Scientific Method

Home

Welcome

Welcome to our website and Home page. If you are new to the findings of independent, scientific research on the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11), please begin by clicking Introduction.

New Concise Video Summary of Wayne Coste’s Research

Feb 13, 2019

Wayne Coste’s presentation of the 9/11 Pentagon evidence is essential homework for any who want to engage in the ongoing discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We have come a long way from the early memes of “too little debris” and “the hole is too small.” As Wayne puts it, “If you care enough to have an opinion about what happened at the Pentagon, you should care enough to know what the evidence is and what it shows.”

The Pentagon event has become the most divisive issue in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and other groups that have followed their lead, have set aside the question of what hit the Pentagon as “out of scope.” This policy has had the virtue of enabling them to focus their energies on the most solid evidence we have, which is the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

However a side-effect of this decision has been to leave an intellectual vacuum at the Pentagon, where unscientific theories could flourish, unchallenged by any kind of scientific process. The uproar that has resulted threatens the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The situation has been described by some as “a mudfest.” If the movement ever gains real traction, it is the weakest link that will be the sole focus of public scrutiny, and it will be used to discredit all of our other work. The good work we have done at the World Trade Center will be ignored.

Scientists for 9/11 Truth has taken a different approach to this question. Rather than put the Pentagon event “off limits” our goal has been to put the discussion of the Pentagon evidence on a firm scientific footing. That is not to say only particular kinds of evidence, or particular analytic techniques are allowed, or that only “scientists” can be involved. Instead it insists that all who engage in the discussion enter into the dialectical process that is at the heart of real science.

In other words observations, analysis, and hypotheses about what happened should be presented openly to the community for critique, discussion, and correction. It is this self-correcting process, not some particular subject matter, or particular analytical techniques, or particular academic degrees that defines science. Science is characterized by its openness to public scrutiny. Promulgating private theories, encouraging a climate of us vs them, and attacking any who disagree is contrary to the nature of real science.

We welcome you to join us in doing real science, but please do the homework.